Newsroom
The court’s extensive ruling regarding the dismissal of Odysseas Michaelides from the role of Auditor General introduces new legal precedents concerning the public conduct of institutional figures and those tasked with serving the public interest.
According to Apostolos Tomaras' article published in Kathimerini Cyprus in Greek, the ruling, issued by an eight-judge panel, meticulously recounts a period marked by intense disputes between Michaelides and various members of the executive branch.
The 15-chapter decision reaffirms the importance of proper conduct for state officials, asserting that no one is exempt from scrutiny. "The position of an independent official in the Republic is a continuous call to responsibility and a daily reminder of duty. Officials are not only expected to perform their strictly defined duties but also to be role models and cultivate values," the ruling stated. Judges Antonis Liatsos, Teucros Economou, Tasia Psara-Miltiadou, Dora Sokratos, Stalo Chatzigianni, Teresa Karakanna, Elias Georgiou, and Marika Kalligero formed the panel.
The ruling emphasized that Michaelides' dismissal was not based on his official duties—namely, overseeing various entities—but rather on his public image, which, for years, frequently clashed with fundamental principles of the rule of law.
The panel criticized Michaelides' public statements and behavior, citing instances where he violated the presumption of innocence, particularly in relation to the Deputy Attorney General, following a verdict from the Anti-Corruption Authority. They expressed disappointment in his failure to respect the legal rights of others and described his conduct as "impetuous, emotional, and lacking in restraint."
One key element scrutinized was Michaelides' involvement in social media, including a Facebook group and the former Twitter platform, which he distanced himself from but the judges found unconvincing. The ruling highlighted that his participation in these platforms led to unnecessary comments, hostility, and public disputes with officials, including journalists, university officials, and prison administrators. His actions were characterized as lacking in objectivity and self-control, which the court deemed inappropriate for someone in his position.
The panel also addressed multiple accusations Michaelides made regarding issues like pensions and contracts, concluding that his arguments were often misleading and based on distorted facts. Additionally, they found his claims of governmental cover-ups, particularly regarding the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Finance, to be unsupported and damaging to the integrity of the institutions.
Ultimately, the ruling painted a picture of an official whose actions had strayed beyond the acceptable limits of his role, culminating in a decision to remove him from office to uphold the standards of public service.
